Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bu-cs!madd
From: madd@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Jim Frost)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Apple/Microsoft dispute (was Re: SEA & I'm not happy!)
Message-ID: <24945@bu-cs.BU.EDU>
Date: 17 Sep 88 19:58:18 GMT
References: <4574232@<KPETERSEN> <16800358@clio> <925@psu-cs.UUCP> <8996@cup.portal.com> <1988Sep13.185106.14193@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu> <1894@udccvax1.acs.udel.EDU>
Reply-To: madd@bu-it.bu.edu (Jim Frost)
Followup-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Organization: Boston University Distributed Systems Group
Lines: 19

In article <1894@udccvax1.acs.udel.EDU> anand@vax1.acs.udel.EDU (Anand Iyengar) writes:
|In article <1988Sep13.185106.14193@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu> sarathy@gpu.utcs.UUCP (Rajiv Sarathy) writes:
|	Au contraire:  it's good for Apple, who stole it from Xerox, who's
|to weak to sue them...

Apple bought the technology from Xerox, they didn't steal it.  Then
they improved it a lot.  Suddenly everyone is saying "hey, neat, let's
do that" and Apple's upset.  That's business.

On the legal side of the issue, check out this month's UNIX Review for
a lawyer's opinion of the lawsuit.  He believes, and I agree, that
Apple is most likely going to win.  Microsoft licensed technology for
Windows 1.0, not 2.03.  The license mentioned *specific* products and
had no continuation clause (eg "and subsequent versions"), which is
not so good for Microsoft.  The article is recommended if you want a
lawyer's standpoint in layman's language.

jim frost
madd@bu-it.bu.edu